Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

How hard is it to find an AP-k?

Expand Messages
  • Mike Oakes
    Jens Kruse Andersen s very nice Primes in Arithmetic Progression Records page at: http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/aprecords.htm lists The
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Jens Kruse Andersen's very nice "Primes in Arithmetic Progression Records" page at:
      http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/aprecords.htm
      lists "The largestknown AP-k", for k=3..25.

      The number of digits range from 137514 (k=3) to 17 (k=25).

      I have played around with simple formulae to smoothly interpolate this huge range of sizes, and offer the following, which gives a surprisingly close fit over the whole range.

      The "score" for an AP-k with d digits is defined to be:
      s = (k+3)*log(d)

      Inserting the latest records from Jens's page gives this table:-

      k d log(d) s=(k+3)*log(d)
      - - ------ --------------
      3 137514 11.831 70.989
      4 11961 9.3894 65.726
      5 7009 8.8550 70.840
      6 1606 7.3815 66.434
      7 1290 7.1624 71.624
      8 1057 6.9632 76.595
      9 425 6.0521 72.625
      10 265 5.5797 72.536
      11 195 5.2730 73.822
      12 173 5.1533 77.299
      13 78 4.3567 69.707
      14 69 4.2341 71.980
      15 48 3.8712 69.682
      16 38 3.6376 69.114
      17 29 3.3673 67.346
      18 29 3.3673 70.713
      19 27 3.2958 72.508
      20 21 3.0445 70.024
      21 20 2.9957 71.898
      22 19 2.9444 73.611
      23 19 2.9444 76.555
      24 17 2.8332 76.497
      25 17 2.8332 79.330

      The average score is 72.063, and the median is 71.898 (for k=21).

      Putting c=71.898, the values of d = exp(c/(k+3)) giving that same score would be as follows:-

      k d
      - -
      3 160011.345
      4 28886.8819
      5 8000.42545
      6 2947.36452
      7 1325.83801
      8 689.648341
      9 400.014181
      10 252.299124
      11 169.961413
      12 120.686950
      13 89.4450973
      14 68.6687430
      15 54.2896355
      16 43.9962878
      17 36.4120586
      18 30.6831697
      19 26.2611565
      20 22.7826664
      21 20.0003545
      22 17.7417390
      23 15.8839266
      24 14.3376492
      25 13.0369250

      Comparison of these 2 tables indicate that, in terms of this fit, the k=25 record (79.330) fills the top spot, which seems reasonable (it is indeed very impressive!),
      while Jeff Anderson-Lee's record for k=12 (77.299) and Ken Davis's for k=8 (76.595) take the next 2 places.
      Further corroboration that my measure is on the right track is that Ken's record heads the table of "Weighted Record Primes of this Type" on Chris Caldwell's "Arithmetic Progressions of Primes" page
      http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14

      At the other end of the scale, Ken's records for k=4 (65.726) and k=6 (66.434) look rather weak.
      Back in 2006 I held both these, and as a result of this little exercise have decided to have a go at a major upgrade of the k=6 record.
      The PFGW run will take 7 more weeks (at 3.79 GHz) to finish.
      I'm also attacking the 3rd-weakest (k=17).

      Who wants to have a crack at some of the other ("weaker") ones?

      -Mike Oakes
    • Mike Oakes
      ... [snip] I retract yesterday s post. Further reflection and numerical experiments have shown that using (k+3) is no better than using (k+4) , and it is
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:
        >
        > The "score" for an AP-k with d digits is defined to be:
        > s = (k+3)*log(d)
        [snip]

        I retract yesterday's post.

        Further reflection and numerical experiments have shown that using "(k+3)" is no better than using "(k+4)",
        and it is the latter that has a theoretical motivation, as follows.

        A typical search method is to sieve and then test for primality a block of N numbers of the form m*p#+1,
        for some fixed prime p and N consecutive values of m.
        If the numbers are of size d digits, then by PNT a fraction of about 1/d of the numbers will be prime.
        In this block of N, there will be approximately (N/d) primes, and 0.5*(N/d)^2 prime pairs.
        Considering each of these pairs as the start of a potential AP-k, the number of AP-k's will be of order N^2/d^k.
        For a search to get an even chance of finding an AP-k, we must have N^2/d^k of order 1, i.e. N=d^(k/2).
        To perform a primality test on a number of size d digits is of difficulty approximately d^2 (neglecting terms of order log(d)).
        The amount of computation involved in finding an AP-k is therefore of order N*d^2=d^(k/2+2).
        The log of this (if we multiply by 2) is (k+4)*log(d).

        We therefore define the "score" for an AP-k with d digits to be
        s = (k+4)*log(d)

        NB If factors of order 1 are neglected, this coincides with Chris Caldwell's definition of weight on his "Arithmetic Progressions of Primes" page
        http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14
        where he presents a detailed theoretical justification, with references, for the algebraic expression he uses.

        Inserting the latest records from Jens's page
        http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/aprecords.htm
        gives this table:-

        k d log(d) s=(k+4)*log(d)
        - - ------ --------------
        3 137514 11.831 82.817
        4 11961 9.3894 75.115
        5 7009 8.8550 79.695
        6 1606 7.3815 73.815
        7 1290 7.1624 78.786
        8 1057 6.9632 83.558
        9 425 6.0521 78.677
        10 265 5.5797 78.116
        11 195 5.2730 79.095
        12 173 5.1533 82.453
        13 78 4.3567 74.064
        14 69 4.2341 76.214
        15 48 3.8712 73.553
        16 38 3.6376 72.752
        17 29 3.3673 70.713
        18 29 3.3673 74.081
        19 27 3.2958 75.803
        20 21 3.0445 73.068
        21 20 2.9957 74.893
        22 19 2.9444 76.554
        23 19 2.9444 79.499
        24 17 2.8332 79.330
        25 17 2.8332 82.163

        The mean score is 77.166, the median is 76.554 (for k=22).
        The range of values is 70.713..82.817, giving a spread of 12.104,
        which is better than the spread with "(k+3)" of 13.604.
        This new fit has also a smaller relative variance: 0.002085 compared with 0.002258.

        Putting c=76.554, the values of d = exp(c/(k+4)) giving that same score would be as follows:-

        k d(theor.) d(actual)
        - --------- ---------
        3 56178.293 137514
        4 14317.674 11961
        5 4944.3461 7009
        6 2112.0198 1606
        7 1053.0590 1290
        8 589.63282 1057
        9 360.96075 425
        10 237.01960 265
        11 164.61345 195
        12 119.65648 173
        13 90.303523 78
        14 70.316044 69
        15 56.213554 48
        16 45.956716 38
        17 38.299183 29
        18 32.450871 29
        19 27.894646 27
        20 24.282356 21
        21 21.373674 20
        22 18.998967 19
        23 17.036078 19
        24 15.395441 17
        25 14.010305 17

        The rank-ordering is considerably different than when "(k+3)" was used in the formula. The new ordering is:-

        rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d)
        ---- - - --------------
        1 8 1057 83.558 was 3rd
        2 3 137514 82.817 was 14th
        3 12 173 82.453 was 2nd
        4 25 17 82.163 was 1st
        5 5 7009 79.695 was 15th
        6 23 19 79.499
        7 24 17 79.330
        8 11 195 79.095
        9 7 1290 78.786 was 13th
        10 9 425 78.677
        11 10 265 78.116
        12 22 19 76.554 MEDIAN
        13 14 69 76.214
        14 19 27 75.803
        15 4 11961 75.115 was 23rd
        16 21 20 74.893
        17 18 29 74.081
        18 13 78 74.064
        19 6 1606 73.815 was 22nd
        20 15 48 73.553
        21 20 21 73.068
        22 16 38 72.752
        23 17 29 70.713

        The main changes are that the records with smaller k have moved up in the rankings - for k=3, dramatically so!
        The k=4 and k=6 records don't now look quite so relatively weak (which should please Ken:-)

        The rank order now agrees with Chris's in his above-cited page, for d > 1000 (the lower limit for inclusion in his table).

        Mike
      • Ken Davis
        Hi Mike, You re right I like the second ranking better ;-) rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d) ... 1 8 1057 83.558 5 5 7009 79.695 9 7 1290 78.786
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 7, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mike,
          You're right I like the second ranking better ;-)

          rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d)
          ---- - - --------------
          1 8 1057 83.558
          5 5 7009 79.695
          9 7 1290 78.786
          10 9 425 78.677
          11 10 265 78.116
          15 4 11961 75.115
          19 6 1606 73.815

          Having found the above APs I tend to agree with your difficulty ranking. The AP8 was definitely the hardest.

          cheers
          Ken

          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@> wrote:
          > >
          > > The "score" for an AP-k with d digits is defined to be:
          > > s = (k+3)*log(d)
          > [snip]
          >
          > I retract yesterday's post.
          >
          > Further reflection and numerical experiments have shown that using "(k+3)" is no better than using "(k+4)",
          > and it is the latter that has a theoretical motivation, as follows.
          >
          > A typical search method is to sieve and then test for primality a block of N numbers of the form m*p#+1,
          > for some fixed prime p and N consecutive values of m.
          > If the numbers are of size d digits, then by PNT a fraction of about 1/d of the numbers will be prime.
          > In this block of N, there will be approximately (N/d) primes, and 0.5*(N/d)^2 prime pairs.
          > Considering each of these pairs as the start of a potential AP-k, the number of AP-k's will be of order N^2/d^k.
          > For a search to get an even chance of finding an AP-k, we must have N^2/d^k of order 1, i.e. N=d^(k/2).
          > To perform a primality test on a number of size d digits is of difficulty approximately d^2 (neglecting terms of order log(d)).
          > The amount of computation involved in finding an AP-k is therefore of order N*d^2=d^(k/2+2).
          > The log of this (if we multiply by 2) is (k+4)*log(d).
          >
          > We therefore define the "score" for an AP-k with d digits to be
          > s = (k+4)*log(d)
          >
          > NB If factors of order 1 are neglected, this coincides with Chris Caldwell's definition of weight on his "Arithmetic Progressions of Primes" page
          > http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14
          > where he presents a detailed theoretical justification, with references, for the algebraic expression he uses.
          >
          > Inserting the latest records from Jens's page
          > http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/aprecords.htm
          > gives this table:-
          >
          > k d log(d) s=(k+4)*log(d)
          > - - ------ --------------
          > 3 137514 11.831 82.817
          > 4 11961 9.3894 75.115
          > 5 7009 8.8550 79.695
          > 6 1606 7.3815 73.815
          > 7 1290 7.1624 78.786
          > 8 1057 6.9632 83.558
          > 9 425 6.0521 78.677
          > 10 265 5.5797 78.116
          > 11 195 5.2730 79.095
          > 12 173 5.1533 82.453
          > 13 78 4.3567 74.064
          > 14 69 4.2341 76.214
          > 15 48 3.8712 73.553
          > 16 38 3.6376 72.752
          > 17 29 3.3673 70.713
          > 18 29 3.3673 74.081
          > 19 27 3.2958 75.803
          > 20 21 3.0445 73.068
          > 21 20 2.9957 74.893
          > 22 19 2.9444 76.554
          > 23 19 2.9444 79.499
          > 24 17 2.8332 79.330
          > 25 17 2.8332 82.163
          >
          > The mean score is 77.166, the median is 76.554 (for k=22).
          > The range of values is 70.713..82.817, giving a spread of 12.104,
          > which is better than the spread with "(k+3)" of 13.604.
          > This new fit has also a smaller relative variance: 0.002085 compared with 0.002258.
          >
          > Putting c=76.554, the values of d = exp(c/(k+4)) giving that same score would be as follows:-
          >
          > k d(theor.) d(actual)
          > - --------- ---------
          > 3 56178.293 137514
          > 4 14317.674 11961
          > 5 4944.3461 7009
          > 6 2112.0198 1606
          > 7 1053.0590 1290
          > 8 589.63282 1057
          > 9 360.96075 425
          > 10 237.01960 265
          > 11 164.61345 195
          > 12 119.65648 173
          > 13 90.303523 78
          > 14 70.316044 69
          > 15 56.213554 48
          > 16 45.956716 38
          > 17 38.299183 29
          > 18 32.450871 29
          > 19 27.894646 27
          > 20 24.282356 21
          > 21 21.373674 20
          > 22 18.998967 19
          > 23 17.036078 19
          > 24 15.395441 17
          > 25 14.010305 17
          >
          > The rank-ordering is considerably different than when "(k+3)" was used in the formula. The new ordering is:-
          >
          > rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d)
          > ---- - - --------------
          > 1 8 1057 83.558 was 3rd
          > 2 3 137514 82.817 was 14th
          > 3 12 173 82.453 was 2nd
          > 4 25 17 82.163 was 1st
          > 5 5 7009 79.695 was 15th
          > 6 23 19 79.499
          > 7 24 17 79.330
          > 8 11 195 79.095
          > 9 7 1290 78.786 was 13th
          > 10 9 425 78.677
          > 11 10 265 78.116
          > 12 22 19 76.554 MEDIAN
          > 13 14 69 76.214
          > 14 19 27 75.803
          > 15 4 11961 75.115 was 23rd
          > 16 21 20 74.893
          > 17 18 29 74.081
          > 18 13 78 74.064
          > 19 6 1606 73.815 was 22nd
          > 20 15 48 73.553
          > 21 20 21 73.068
          > 22 16 38 72.752
          > 23 17 29 70.713
          >
          > The main changes are that the records with smaller k have moved up in the rankings - for k=3, dramatically so!
          > The k=4 and k=6 records don't now look quite so relatively weak (which should please Ken:-)
          >
          > The rank order now agrees with Chris's in his above-cited page, for d > 1000 (the lower limit for inclusion in his table).
          >
          > Mike
          >
        • Ken Davis
          Hi Mike, Having now carefully read your posting and while still thinking that the end result gives a good indication of difficulty I have questions about the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 9, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Mike,

            Having now "carefully" read your posting and while still thinking that the end result gives a good indication of difficulty I have questions about the statement "If the numbers are of size d digits, then by PNT a fraction of about 1/d of the numbers will be prime. If the numbers are of size d digits, then by PNT a fraction of about 1/d of the numbers will be prime"

            Firstly doesn't the prime number theorem that for a number N the probability of a random number N being prime is
            ~= 1/log(N)
            ~= 1/dlog(10)
            so for a random 265 digit number the chance of it being prime would be
            ~= 1/610.185

            Secondly using p# further increases this probability.
            = (1/(dlog(10))*(1/2*2/3*4/5*....*p-1/p))
            So for a 265 digit number of the form 617#+1 the probability would be
            = 1/53.12 (not 1/265)
            As a practical comparison for the ap10 mentioned (with 265 digits) I found 18,894,798 prps out of 1,000,000,000 candidates meaning that 1/52.92 numbers were prps
            With the 1057 digit numbers used for the ap8 ~= 1/174 were prps

            Does this affect the rest of your calculations?

            Cheers
            Ken
          • Mike Oakes
            ... Quite right, Ken. I saw the sloppy wording just after hitting Send , but thought I would wait till someone commented rather than send a trivial
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 12, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Davis" <kradenken@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Mike,
              >
              > Having now "carefully" read your posting and while still thinking that the end result gives a good indication of difficulty I have questions about the statement "If the numbers are of size d digits, then by PNT a fraction of about 1/d of the numbers will be prime.
              > Firstly doesn't the prime number theorem that for a number N the probability of a random number N being prime is
              > ~= 1/log(N)
              > ~= 1/dlog(10)
              > so for a random 265 digit number the chance of it being prime would be
              > ~= 1/610.185

              Quite right, Ken.
              I saw the sloppy wording just after hitting "Send", but thought I would wait till someone commented rather than send a trivial correction.
              In fact, my "score" function would only have gained an overall factor of log(10), and since such factors have been removed (they make no difference to the goodness of fit and there is anyway another suppressed factor from the d^2 difficulty-of-primality-testing aspect), that will not affect anything.

              > Secondly using p# further increases this probability.
              > = (1/(dlog(10))*(1/2*2/3*4/5*....*p-1/p))
              > So for a 265 digit number of the form 617#+1 the probability would be
              > = 1/53.12 (not 1/265)
              > As a practical comparison for the ap10 mentioned (with 265 digits) I found 18,894,798 prps out of 1,000,000,000 candidates meaning that 1/52.92 numbers were prps
              > With the 1057 digit numbers used for the ap8 ~= 1/174 were prps
              >
              > Does this affect the rest of your calculations?

              This is a *much" harder one!
              I have been exercised on this aspect ever since starting AP-k searches at the start of 2006 - and no doubt you have too!

              We need a description of what is happening when we choose the candidate integers from an AP rather than a contiguous set, don't we?

              After about 3 days more or less continuous reflection and computer experimentation I think I have at last completely cracked this problem.
              I have a Hardy-Littlewood-type conjecture which does exactly what we want (and is able to predict your AP-8 stats to an extraordinary degree of precision:-)
              A post on all that is in preparation.
              Thanks for your encouragement.

              -Mike Oakes
            • David Broadhurst
              ... Yum, yum! My saliva buds are already working. David
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:

                > After about 3 days more or less continuous reflection and
                > computer experimentation I think I have at last completely
                > cracked this problem.
                > I have a Hardy-Littlewood-type conjecture which does exactly what
                > we want (and is able to predict your AP-8 stats to an extraordinary
                > degree of precision:-)
                > A post on all that is in preparation.

                Yum, yum! My saliva buds are already working.

                David
              • Mike Oakes
                ... Two key references for this post are Chris s wonderfully informative Arithmetic Progressions of Primes page http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 22, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:
                  > A post on all that is in preparation.

                  Two key references for this post are Chris's wonderfully informative "Arithmetic Progressions of Primes" page
                  http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14
                  and references cited therein; plus Jens's comprehensive "Primes in Arithmetic Progression Records" page
                  http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/aprecords.htm

                  It follows from the Hardy-Littlewood prime k-tuple conjecture that the number of arithmetic progressions of k terms, all primes and not larger than x, is asymptotically (for large x):-
                  c_k(x) = D_k*x^2/(2*(k-1)*log(x)^k) .. (1)
                  where
                  D_k={product: p prime}beta(p)
                  with
                  beta(p)=(1-1/p)^(1-k)*(1/p) p <= k
                  =(1-1/p)^(1-k)*(1-(k-1)/p) p >= k

                  Consider the sequence u(a,d,n)=a+d*n, 0<=n<k.
                  The count of all such sequences with 0 < u(a,d,n) <= x is approximately:-
                  t_k(N) = x^2/(2*(k-1)) ..(2)

                  Comparison of (1) and (2) shows that the probability of a typical sequence consisting of *all* primes is just the product of the probabilities for each term separately to be prime (which by the PNT is 1/log(x), since x is the typical size of a term) times the factor D_k, which incorporates the fact that the terms are not independent from one another, prime-factor-wise.

                  Apply the above probability argument now to a k-term sequence u(a,d,n), where a is drawn at random from a set of Na values {A}, and d is drawn at random from a set of Nd values {D},
                  giving a total of Na*Nd sequences.

                  Let p(n) be the probability that u(n)=(a+n*d) be prime, 0<=n<k.

                  Conjecture: the probability P that u(n) is a sequence consisting of *all* primes is
                  P=D(k,d)*product{0<=n<k}p(n)
                  where
                  D(k,d)={product: p prime, p does not divide d}beta(p)

                  ===

                  To see how the number of factors in d affects the "scaling" factor D(k,d), here is a table of computed values, with the number of significant digits displayed being approximately the number that can be trusted.
                  [D(k,1), D(k,1009#) and D(k,10007#) were computed using all primes to 10^8, the others using primes up to 10^7.]

                  For all q, we have:-
                  D(2,q#)=1.00000000000

                  D(3,1)=1.32032363
                  D(3,2#)=0.6601618
                  D(3,3#)=0.8802158
                  D(3,5#)=0.9388968
                  D(3,7#)=0.9657224
                  D(3,17#)=0.9861509
                  D(3,37#)=0.9943893
                  D(3,67#)=0.9972169
                  D(3,1009#)=0.99987387
                  D(3,10007#)=0.999990194

                  D(4,1)=2.85824860
                  D(4,2#)=0.7145622
                  D(4,3#)=0.6351664
                  D(4,5#)=0.8130129
                  D(4,7#)=0.8959735
                  D(4,17#)=0.9581001
                  D(4,37#)=0.9830958
                  D(4,67#)=0.9916287
                  D(4,1009#)=0.99962152
                  D(4,10007#)=0.999970581

                  D(5,1)=4.1511809
                  D(5,2#)=0.5188976
                  D(5,3#)=0.3074949
                  D(5,5#)=0.6297495
                  D(5,7#)=0.7931539
                  D(5,17#)=0.9160594
                  D(5,37#)=0.9661407
                  D(5,67#)=0.9832363
                  D(5,1009#)=0.999242915
                  D(5,10007#)=0.999941160

                  D(6,1)=10.131795
                  D(6,2#)=0.6332372
                  D(6,3#)=0.2501678
                  D(6,5#)=0.4098749
                  D(6,7#)=0.6637208
                  D(6,17#)=0.8608535
                  D(6,37#)=0.9436427
                  D(6,67#)=0.9720641
                  D(6,1009#)=0.99873807
                  D(6,10007#)=0.99990193

                  D(7,1)=17.298612
                  D(7,2#)=0.5405817
                  D(7,3#)=0.1423754
                  D(7,5#)=0.1866143
                  D(7,7#)=0.5180388
                  D(7,17#)=0.7939335
                  D(7,37#)=0.9158195
                  D(7,67#)=0.9581607
                  D(7,1009#)=0.99810703
                  D(7,10007#)=0.99985290

                  D(8,1)=53.971949
                  D(8,2#)=0.8433118
                  D(8,3#)=0.1480712
                  D(8,5#)=0.1552639
                  D(8,7#)=0.3694376
                  D(8,17#)=0.7173459
                  D(8,37#)=0.8829862
                  D(8,67#)=0.9415983
                  D(8,1009#)=0.99734991
                  D(8,10007#)=0.99979405

                  D(9,1)=148.55163
                  D(9,2#)=1.1605598
                  D(9,3#)=0.1358497
                  D(9,5#)=0.1139590
                  D(9,7#)=0.2324194
                  D(9,17#)=0.6336562
                  D(9,37#)=0.8455522
                  D(9,67#)=0.9224727
                  D(9,1009#)=0.99646687
                  D(9,10007#)=0.99972541

                  D(10,1)=336.03433
                  D(10,2#)=1.3126344
                  D(10,3#)=0.1024339
                  D(10,5#)=0.0687422
                  D(10,7#)=0.1201712
                  D(10,17#)=0.5458231
                  D(10,37#)=0.8040131
                  D(10,67#)=0.9009026
                  D(10,1009#)=0.99545810
                  D(10,10007#)=0.99964695

                  D(11,1)=511.42229
                  D(11,2#)=0.9988719
                  D(11,3#)=0.0519659
                  D(11,5#)=0.02789898
                  D(11,7#)=0.04180406
                  D(11,17#)=0.4570322
                  D(11,37#)=0.7589416
                  D(11,67#)=0.8770283
                  D(11,1009#)=0.99432385
                  D(11,10007#)=0.99955869

                  D(12,1)=1312.3197
                  D(12,2#)=1.2815626
                  D(12,3#)=0.04444851
                  D(12,5#)=0.01909049
                  D(12,7#)=0.02451887
                  D(12,17#)=0.3704957
                  D(12,37#)=0.7109748
                  D(12,67#)=0.8510107
                  D(12,1009#)=0.9930644
                  D(12,10007#)=0.99946063

                  D(13,1)=2364.5990
                  D(13,2#)=1.1545898
                  D(13,3#)=0.02669647
                  D(13,5#)=0.009172838
                  D(13,7#)=0.010098114
                  D(13,17#)=0.2892347
                  D(13,37#)=0.6607992
                  D(13,67#)=0.8230294
                  D(13,1009#)=0.9916802
                  D(13,10007#)=0.99935277

                  D(14,1)=7820.6003
                  D(14,2#)=1.9093271
                  D(14,3#)=0.02943169
                  D(14,5#)=0.00809012
                  D(14,7#)=0.00763387
                  D(14,17#)=0.2158645
                  D(14,37#)=0.6091338
                  D(14,67#)=0.7932804
                  D(14,1009#)=0.9901715
                  D(14,10007#)=0.99923512

                  D(15,1)=22938.910
                  D(15,2#)=2.8001612
                  D(15,3#)=0.02877575
                  D(15,5#)=0.00632785
                  D(15,7#)=0.00511799
                  D(15,17#)=0.1524021
                  D(15,37#)=0.5567125
                  D(15,67#)=0.7619744
                  D(15,1009#)=0.9885387
                  D(15,10007#)=0.99910766

                  D(16,1)=55651.466
                  D(16,2#)=3.3966978
                  D(16,3#)=0.02327069
                  D(16,5#)=0.00409382
                  D(16,7#)=0.00283808
                  D(16,17#)=0.1001208
                  D(16,37#)=0.5042644
                  D(16,67#)=0.7293338
                  D(16,1009#)=0.9867825
                  D(16,10007#)=0.99897041

                  D(17,1)=91555.117
                  D(17,2#)=2.7940422
                  D(17,3#)=0.01276128
                  D(17,5#)=0.00179599
                  D(17,7#)=0.00106722
                  D(17,17#)=0.0594701
                  D(17,37#)=0.4524954
                  D(17,67#)=0.6955905
                  D(17,1009#)=0.9849033
                  D(17,10007#)=0.99882337

                  D(18,1)=256474.88
                  D(18,2#)=3.9134989
                  D(18,3#)=0.01191613
                  D(18,5#)=0.001341636
                  D(18,7#)=0.000683341
                  D(18,17#)=0.03007454
                  D(18,37#)=0.4020697
                  D(18,67#)=0.6609823
                  D(18,1009#)=0.9829017
                  D(18,10007#)=0.9986665

                  D(19,1)=510992.05
                  D(19,2#)=3.8985631
                  D(19,3#)=0.007913765
                  D(19,5#)=0.0007128086
                  D(19,7#)=0.0003111922
                  D(19,17#)=0.01081699
                  D(19,37#)=0.3535932
                  D(19,67#)=0.6257508
                  D(19,1009#)=0.9807783
                  D(19,10007#)=0.9984999

                  D(20,1)=1900972.8
                  D(20,2#)=7.251642
                  D(20,3#)=0.009813495
                  D(20,5#)=0.0007071368
                  D(20,7#)=0.0002646138
                  D(20,17#)=0.007264514
                  D(20,37#)=0.3075983
                  D(20,67#)=0.5901376
                  D(20,1009#)=0.9785338
                  D(20,10007#)=0.9983236

                  D(21,1)=6423764.9
                  D(21,2#)=12.2523717
                  D(21,3#)=0.01105392
                  D(21,5#)=0.0006372150
                  D(21,7#)=0.0002043846
                  D(21,17#)=0.004431580
                  D(21,37#)=0.2645322
                  D(21,67#)=0.5543818
                  D(21,1009#)=0.9761689
                  D(21,10007#)=0.9981374

                  D(22,1)=18606668
                  D(22,2#)=17.744721
                  D(22,3#)=0.01067269
                  D(22,5#)=0.000492191
                  D(22,7#)=0.000135316
                  D(22,17#)=0.002317266
                  D(22,37#)=0.2247477
                  D(22,67#)=0.5187169
                  D(22,1009#)=0.9736844
                  D(22,10007#)=0.9979415

                  D(23,1)=38734737
                  D(23,2#)=18.470185
                  D(23,3#)=0.007406019
                  D(23,5#)=0.0002732339
                  D(23,7#)=0.00006438774
                  D(23,17#)=0.000870855
                  D(23,37#)=0.1884984
                  D(23,67#)=0.4833680
                  D(23,1009#)=0.9710811
                  D(23,10007#)=0.9977358

                  D(24,1)=153217040
                  D(24,2#)=36.5298376
                  D(24,3#)=0.009764950
                  D(24,5#)=0.00028821046
                  D(24,7#)=0.00005821456
                  D(24,17#)=0.000621857
                  D(24,37#)=0.1559370
                  D(24,67#)=0.4485489
                  D(24,1009#)=0.9683599
                  D(24,10007#)=0.99752023

                  D(25,1)=568632600
                  D(25,2#)=67.7863864
                  D(25,3#)=0.01208018
                  D(25,5#)=0.0002852353
                  D(25,7#)=0.0000493831
                  D(25,17#)=0.0004166331
                  D(25,37#)=0.1271171
                  D(25,67#)=0.4144603
                  D(25,1009#)=0.9655215
                  D(25,10007#)=0.9972951

                  D(26,1)=1941938900
                  D(26,2#)=115.74876
                  D(26,3#)=0.0137517
                  D(26,5#)=0.00025986
                  D(26,7#)=0.000038548
                  D(26,17#)=0.00025686
                  D(26,37#)=0.1019998
                  D(26,67#)=0.3812867
                  D(26,1009#)=0.9625671
                  D(26,10007#)=0.9970601

                  For k=3..26, we have:-
                  D(k,130003#)=1.00000000000

                  In order to confront this conjecture with experiment, I have computed some expected vs. actual probabilities for three scenarios representative of actually-undertaken searches for AP-k's, in particular, those in which the common difference d has very many factors.

                  ===

                  Consider arithmetic progressions {u(n)=a+n*d, 0<=d<k},
                  where every term is of the form m*q#+1, with M1<=m<=M2.

                  Take M1=99000001, M2 = 101000000, so M_mean=10^8, M_count=2*10^7.

                  If ck is a count of the number of AP-k's,
                  and "dig" is the mean number of digits in u(n), viz. log(M_mean*q#)/log(10),
                  and ck_theor=D(k,q#)*x^2/(2*(k-1)*log(x)^k)
                  with x=M_mean*q#,
                  then we find the following theoretically-predicted and experimentally-found counts:-

                  q dig c1_theor c1_exp
                  1 8.0 108573.62 108540
                  2 8.3 209272.58 209370
                  3 8.8 296846.89 296845
                  5 9.5 343691.77 343261
                  7 10.3 368145.32 368052
                  11 11.4 367848.22 368073
                  13 12.5 362925.64 363158
                  17 13.7 350995.75 350821
                  19 15.0 338882.78 339794
                  23 16.3 324776.66 324653
                  29 17.8 308757.02 309100
                  31 19.3 294398.04 294802
                  37 20.9 279840.28 279217
                  41 22.5 266260.73 266648
                  43 24.1 254136.55 254326
                  47 25.8 242825.31 241998
                  53 27.5 231984.23 232039
                  59 29.3 221713.58 221056
                  61 31.1 212456.16 212742
                  67 32.9 203702.70 203981

                  [Of course c2=c1*(c1-1)/2.]

                  q c3_theor c3_exp
                  1 211233780.6 202841435
                  2 756305702.2 728944254
                  3 2878038897.6 2773618467
                  5 4764697012.5 4512210251
                  7 6023101499.9 5675518754
                  17 5330389807.1 5022131103
                  37 2723937336.5 2586439661
                  67 1053634545.6 1020369385

                  q c4_theor c4_exp
                  1 16549544.5 15871419
                  2 57105514.8 55044966
                  3 205497365.8 197860176
                  5 472675149.7 439294189
                  7 685742445.9 629037681
                  17 605908579.3 554325985
                  37 251203375.0 232545604
                  67 71141821.6 67735580

                  q c5_theor c5_exp
                  1 978618.2 898748
                  2 3254342.9 3012277
                  3 11074405.9 10254290
                  5 47188217.0 43775930
                  7 83805770.3 75904604
                  17 76252302.8 68614763
                  37 25906665.1 23613957
                  67 5388424.9 5081205

                  q c6_theor c6_exp
                  1 103731.9 97097
                  2 332445.4 313857
                  3 1069809.4 1007089
                  5 4222271.7 3980463
                  7 10327165.7 9313827
                  17 10060520.6 8959287
                  37 2832363.2 2554552
                  67 434065.9 406473

                  q c7_theor c7_exp
                  1 8012.2 6911
                  2 24746.6 21828
                  3 75306.3 66759
                  5 275294.6 244774
                  7 1236420.0 1116660
                  17 1356956.5 1201795
                  37 320516.4 287877
                  67 36314.9 33676

                  q c8_theor c8_exp
                  1 1163.2 1013
                  2 3462.4 3033
                  3 9963.7 8952
                  5 33737.7 30323
                  7 139119.3 126565
                  17 184431.7 163219
                  37 37061.9 33069
                  67 3115.5 2800

                  q c9_theor c9_exp
                  1 152.1 136
                  2 436.3 359
                  3 1187.2 1129
                  5 3723.4 3350
                  7 14096.7 13059
                  17 25017.3 22276
                  37 4345.1 3883
                  67 272.0 248

                  q c10_theor c10_exp
                  1 16.6 19
                  2 45.9 37
                  3 118.1 122
                  5 343.1 341
                  7 1192.6 1101
                  17 3361.7 3041
                  37 513.9 457
                  67 24.1 24

                  q c11_theor c11_exp
                  1 1.23 0
                  2 3.29 1
                  3 8.00 7
                  5 21.54 22
                  7 68.73 58
                  17 444.60 389
                  37 61.08 59
                  67 2.15 1

                  q c12_theor c12_exp
                  1 0.156 0
                  2 0.401 0
                  3 0.924 0
                  5 2.302 5
                  7 6.745 4
                  17 57.502 47
                  37 7.279 4
                  67 0.193 0

                  q c13_theor c13_exp
                  1 0.0140 0
                  2 0.0347 0
                  3 0.0755 0
                  5 0.1742 0
                  7 0.4688 0
                  17 7.2216 9
                  37 0.8677 1
                  67 0.0174 0

                  q c14_theor c14_exp
                  1 0.00232 0
                  2 0.00554 0
                  3 0.01140 0
                  5 0.02438 0
                  7 0.06021 0
                  17 0.87312 1
                  37 0.10331 0
                  67 0.00158 0

                  q c15_theor c15_exp
                  1 0.00034 0
                  2 0.00079 0
                  3 0.00154 0
                  5 0.00304 0
                  7 0.00690 0
                  11 0.01975 0
                  13 0.06839 1
                  17 0.10045 0
                  37 0.01227 0
                  67 0.00014 0

                  ===

                  As another set of experiments, this time oriented towards the statistics of actual AP-k records, as per Jens's page cited above, consider, again, arithmetic progressions {u(n)=a+n*d, 0<=d<k},
                  where every term is of the form m*q#+1, with M1<=m<=M2.

                  Take M1 = 1, M2=2000000000, so M_mean=10^9, M_count=2*10^9.
                  We find the following theoretical predictions for counts ck of AP-k's:-

                  ** k=3 **
                  q dig c1 c3 c4 c5
                  317363 137513.7 142526.25 361905.02 17.19 0.00092
                  298409 129237.3 150912.59 429621.89 21.61 0.0012

                  ** k=4 **
                  q dig c1 c3 c4 c5 c6
                  27751 11961.6 1323796.29 289982931.39 127958.82 63.52 0.034
                  23159 10005.8 1555099.09 470092004.06 243678.36 142.10 0.088

                  ** k=5 **
                  q dig c1 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7
                  16229 7009.5 2141861.98 1228237350.34 876896.25 704.31 0.60 0.00054
                  5113 2197.7 6022927.71 27310170302.0 54826899.86 123824.60 298.29 0.75

                  ** k=6 **
                  q dig c1 c4 c5 c6 c7 c8
                  3739 1607.1 7938323.71 165450204.95 492482.39 1563.62 5.17 0.018
                  3529 1503.9 8415847.33 208997272.44 659523.38 2219.91 7.78 0.028
                  3011 1289.5 9634046.26 358902669.50 1296491.56 4995.46 20.05 0.083

                  ** k=7 **
                  q dig c1 c5 c6 c7 c8 c9
                  3011 1289.5 9634046.26 1296491.56 4995.46 20.05 0.083 0.00035
                  3001 1286.0 9656898.99 1311940.73 5066.98 20.38 0.084 0.00036

                  ** k=8 **
                  q dig c1 c6 c7 c8 c9 c10
                  2459 1055.7 11477930.33 14284.51 68.30 0.34 0.0017 0.0000086
                  2411 1035.4 11674422.61 15815.82 76.92 0.38 0.0020 0.000010

                  ** k=9 **
                  q dig c1 c7 c8 c9 c10 c11
                  997 424.3 25284285.59 17171.15 185.93 2.05 0.023 0.00026
                  941 400.4 26574383.43 24323.82 276.80 3.22 0.038 0.00045
                  757 324.2 31826848.17 85922.60 1170.78 16.28 0.23 0.0033
                  701 301.3 33877610.42 132997.69 1928.83 28.55 0.43 0.0065
                  499 215.1 45063613.24 978740.14 18871.29 371.34 7.42 0.15
                  463 201.7 47569642.89 1429072.60 29082.78 604.01 12.74 0.27

                  ** k=10 **
                  q dig c1 c8 c9 c10 c11 c12
                  617 264.6 37815477.56 4645.93 76.75 1.29 0.022 0.00038
                  607 259.1 38504142.29 5366.94 90.27 1.54 0.027 0.00047
                  463 201.7 47569642.89 29082.78 604.01 12.74 0.27 0.0059

                  ** k=11 **
                  q dig c1 c9 c10 c11 c12 c13
                  449 193.7 49209748.70 819.14 17.87 0.39 0.0088 0.00020
                  401 172.6 54198048.78 1950.83 46.86 1.14 0.028 0.00069
                  349 149.4 61132838.21 5755.11 155.84 4.27 0.12 0.0033
                  281 124.4 71150930.76 22489.10 708.20 22.57 0.73 0.024

                  ** k=12 **
                  q dig c1 c10 c11 c12 c13 c14
                  401 172.6 54198048.78 46.86 1.14 0.028 0.00069 0.000017
                  283 126.8 70023070.54 603.89 18.94 0.60 0.019 0.00061
                  229 100.3 84886301.52 4114.22 156.20 5.99 0.23 0.0090
                  199 90.9 91980354.17 9152.84 376.24 15.61 0.65 0.027
                  173 77.2 104883968.89 33805.65 1582.07 74.71 3.55 0.17
                  157 70.5 112761422.84 69464.48 3491.45 177.07 9.04 0.46

                  ** k=13 **
                  q dig c1 c11 c12 c13 c14 c15
                  173 77.2 104883968.89 1582.07 74.71 3.55 0.17 0.0082
                  139 64.0 121865274.43 8151.93 446.18 24.59 1.36 0.076
                  127 57.6 132424730.49 20177.45 1197.92 71.61 4.30 0.26
                  103 49.4 149105671.60 73303.06 4883.26 327.42 22.07 1.49

                  ** k=14 **
                  q dig c1 c12 c13 c14 c15 c16
                  151 68.4 115642693.09 239.12 12.52 0.66 0.035 0.0019
                  131 59.7 128712444.82 854.53 49.69 2.91 0.17 0.010
                  101 47.4 153932686.06 7117.19 492.08 34.19 2.39 0.17

                  ** k=15 **
                  q dig c1 c13 c14 c15 c16 c17
                  101 47.4 153932686.06 492.08 34.19 2.39 0.17 0.012

                  ** k=16 **
                  q dig c1 c14 c15 c16 c17 c18
                  73 37.6 183222748.55 370.57 30.47 2.51 0.21 0.017
                  71 35.7 190132666.62 611.87 52.05 4.44 0.38 0.032
                  43 25.1 244018322.25 17022.92 1801.94 190.50 20.10 2.11

                  ** k=17 **
                  q dig c1 c15 c16 c17 c18 c19
                  53 28.5 223848160.09 541.91 53.41 5.26 0.52 0.051
                  43 25.1 244018322.25 1801.94 190.50 20.10 2.11 0.22

                  ** k=18 **
                  q dig c1 c16 c17 c18 c19 c20
                  53 28.5 223848160.09 53.41 5.26 0.52 0.051 0.0050
                  31 20.3 279897280.35 1305.69 150.81 17.28 1.96 0.22
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 3761.57 442.62 51.13 5.78 0.64

                  ** k=19 **
                  q dig c1 c17 c18 c19 c20 c21
                  31 20.3 279897280.35 150.81 17.28 1.96 0.22 0.024
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 442.62 51.13 5.78 0.64 0.068

                  ** k=20 **
                  q dig c1 c18 c19 c20 c21 c22
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 51.13 5.78 0.64 0.068 0.0071

                  ** k=21 **
                  q dig c1 c19 c20 c21 c22 c23
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 5.78 0.64 0.068 0.0071 0.00070

                  ** k=22 **
                  q dig c1 c20 c21 c22 c23 c24
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 0.64 0.068 0.0071 0.00070 0.000067

                  ** k=23 **
                  q dig c1 c21 c22 c23 c24 c25
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 0.068 0.0071 0.00070 0.000067 0.0000059

                  ** k=24 **
                  q dig c1 c22 c23 c24 c25
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 0.0071 0.00070 0.000067 0.0000059

                  ** k=25 **
                  q dig c1 c23 c24 c25
                  23 17.3 306055912.16 0.00070 0.000067 0.0000059

                  Note (1): The k=8, q=2459 stats agree beautifully with Ken's actual counts - see his post:
                  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/message/20140

                  Note (2): If, instead of M_count=2*10^9, one were to choose a different value, then the above counts are all to be multiplied by (M_count/2*10^9)^2; this is an excellent way of estimating what block size woud be required to obtain a predicted count of 1.0.

                  ===

                  As a final set of experiments, oriented this time towards the statistics of AP-k records for large k, consider arithmetic progressions {u(n)=a+n*d, 0<=d<k}, where every term is of the form a+q#, with a_min<=a<=a_max.

                  Taking always a_max=a_min+10^12, we find the following theoretical predictions for counts of AP-k's:-

                  a_min=10^16, q=23, dig=17:-
                  c20_theor=131491.513618
                  c21_theor=15277.0009101
                  c22_theor=1715.86594350
                  c23_theor=185.099954827
                  c24_theor=19.0095562007
                  c25_theor=1.83517574326
                  c26_theor=0.163311641770

                  a_min=10^18, q=43, dig=19:-
                  c20_theor=605995.069496
                  c21_theor=87300.2072397
                  c22_theor=12504.4660274
                  c23_theor=1779.79385925
                  c24_theor=251.582566249
                  c25_theor=35.2976557067
                  c26_theor=4.91254506617

                  a_min=10^20, q=53, dig=21:-
                  c20_theor=111588.394854
                  c21_theor=14827.7334326
                  c22_theor=1962.13961648
                  c23_theor=258.478592621
                  c24_theor=33.8849092473
                  c25_theor=4.41903581907
                  c26_theor=0.573116905364

                  Comments (pos. or neg.) welcome - especially from AP-k practitioners!

                  -Mike Oakes
                • Mike Oakes
                  ... which is nonsense. I meant: .. consider arithmetic progressions {u(n)=a+n*d, 0
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 22, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > As a final set of experiments, oriented this time towards the
                    > statistics of AP-k records for large k, consider arithmetic
                    > progressions {u(n)=a+n*d, 0<=d<k}, where every term is of the
                    > form a+q#, with a_min<=a<=a_max.

                    which is nonsense. I meant:
                    .. consider arithmetic progressions {u(n)=a+n*d, 0<=n<k}, where d=q#, with a_min<=a<=a_max.

                    Mike
                  • David Broadhurst
                    ... http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14 Yes, that Grosswald conjecture is rather remarkable, About your tables of ck_theor and ck_exp for k 2: the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 22, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                      "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:

                      > Chris's wonderfully informative
                      > "Arithmetic Progressions of Primes" page
                      http://primes.utm.edu/top20/page.php?id=14

                      Yes, that Grosswald conjecture is rather remarkable,

                      About your tables of ck_theor and ck_exp for k > 2:
                      the theory side seems to be systematically high.
                      Not by much, but still more than the 1/sqrt(N) fluctuations.

                      Can you please spell out the comparison with Ken's data:

                      > 189,178,618,167 ap3s
                      > 543,008,443 ap4s
                      > 3,117,826 ap5s

                      It seems that you did not so far show your expectations
                      for c3,c4,c5, where his stats are good. (I take your point
                      about c6 and c7 looking good.)

                      Thanks for an interesting posting.

                      David
                    • Mike Oakes
                      ... My program output says:- counts_theor(3,2459)=189008276732. counts_theor(4,2459)=723074851.939 counts_theor(5,2459)=3111847.13368 Note that Ken qualified
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 22, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "David Broadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Can you please spell out the comparison with Ken's data:
                        >
                        > > 189,178,618,167 ap3s
                        > > 543,008,443 ap4s
                        > > 3,117,826 ap5s
                        >
                        > It seems that you did not so far show your expectations
                        > for c3,c4,c5, where his stats are good. (I take your point
                        > about c6 and c7 looking good.)
                        >

                        My program output says:-
                        counts_theor(3,2459)=189008276732.
                        counts_theor(4,2459)=723074851.939
                        counts_theor(5,2459)=3111847.13368

                        Note that Ken qualified his ap4s count by
                        "(psuedo eg. 1,2,3,5 as only processed AP3's with an even difference)"

                        Mike
                      • David Broadhurst
                        ... Very nice: congrats! David
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 22, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                          "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:

                          > > 189,178,618,167 ap3s
                          > > 3,117,826 ap5s

                          > counts_theor(3,2459)=189008276732.
                          > counts_theor(5,2459)=3111847.13368

                          Very nice: congrats!

                          David
                        • Ken Davis
                          Hi Mike, A few quick comparisons with some of my other searches. AP9 With m_count = 1*10^9 and your formula (M_count/2*10^9)^2 = 1/4 Gives q dig c1 c7 c8 c9
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 22, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Mike,
                            A few quick comparisons with some of my other searches.

                            AP9
                            With m_count = 1*10^9 and your formula (M_count/2*10^9)^2 = 1/4
                            Gives

                            q dig c1 c7 c8 c9
                            Theory 997 424.3 12642142 4293 46 0
                            Actual 997 424.3 12658662 4331 53 0

                            If you want to compare further
                            Ap6s = 409947
                            Ap5s = 40570738
                            Ap4s = 3207896756 (this might have been pseudo's I'd have to check my C++ code which I don't have access to at the moment)
                            Ap3's = lost count

                            AP10
                            With m_count = 1*10^9
                            Gives

                            q dig c1 c8 c9 c10
                            Theory 617 264.6 18907739 1161 19 0
                            Actual 617 264.6 18894798 1133 14 0

                            Ap7s = 71214
                            I only have valid counts down to this level as I only processed AP3s with a difference of 3 (looking inside them for an Ap7)

                            All in all your theory nicely agrees with my results and should help me greatly for future searches.
                            Thanks Mike!
                            A very nice result.

                            Cheers
                            Ken
                          • Mike Oakes
                            ... counts_theor(1,997)=12642142.7943 counts_theor(2,997)=7.99118808941 E13 counts_theor(3,997)=505064537331. counts_theor(4,997)=4255649343.14
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 23, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Davis" <kradenken@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi Mike,
                              > A few quick comparisons with some of my other searches.
                              >
                              > AP9
                              > With m_count = 1*10^9 and your formula (M_count/2*10^9)^2 = 1/4
                              > Gives
                              >
                              > q dig c1 c7 c8 c9
                              > Theory 997 424.3 12642142 4293 46 0
                              > Actual 997 424.3 12658662 4331 53 0
                              >
                              > If you want to compare further
                              > Ap6s = 409947
                              > Ap5s = 40570738
                              > Ap4s = 3207896756 (this might have been pseudo's I'd have to check my C++ code which I don't have access to at the moment)
                              > Ap3's = lost count
                              >

                              counts_theor(1,997)=12642142.7943
                              counts_theor(2,997)=7.99118808941 E13
                              counts_theor(3,997)=505064537331.
                              counts_theor(4,997)=4255649343.14
                              counts_theor(5,997)=40334993.7203
                              counts_theor(6,997)=407728.896596
                              counts_theor(7,997)=4292.73732756
                              counts_theor(8,997)=46.4810674074
                              counts_theor(9,997)=0.513708974304
                              counts_theor(10,997)=0.00576689464294
                              counts_theor(11,997)=0.0000655399693707
                              counts_theor(12,997)=0.000000752280002281

                              > AP10
                              > With m_count = 1*10^9
                              > Gives
                              >
                              > q dig c1 c8 c9 c10
                              > Theory 617 264.6 18907739 1161 19 0
                              > Actual 617 264.6 18894798 1133 14 0
                              >
                              > Ap7s = 71214
                              > I only have valid counts down to this level as I only processed AP3s with a difference of 3 (looking inside them for an Ap7)
                              >

                              counts_theor(1,617)=18895165.9208
                              counts_theor(2,617)=1.78513638140 E14
                              counts_theor(3,617)=1.68615682803 E12
                              counts_theor(4,617)=21230924677.6
                              counts_theor(5,617)=300675388.024
                              counts_theor(6,617)=4541098.43467
                              counts_theor(7,617)=71426.2578907
                              counts_theor(8,617)=1155.29887582
                              counts_theor(9,617)=19.0717479232
                              counts_theor(10,617)=0.319764874922
                              counts_theor(11,617)=0.00542713429128
                              counts_theor(12,617)=0.0000930206866839
                              counts_theor(13,617)=0.00000160729956878

                              Thanks for your feedback, Ken.

                              Mike
                            • mikeoakes2
                              ... That was as per 6 Jun. Just over 5 months on, the revised table is:- rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d) ... 1 8 1057 83.558 2 3 137514 82.817 3 12
                              Message 14 of 14 , Nov 17, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Oakes" <mikeoakes2@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Inserting the latest records from Jens's page
                                > http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/aprecords.htm
                                > gives this table:-
                                >
                                > rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d)
                                > ---- - - --------------
                                > 1 8 1057 83.558
                                > 2 3 137514 82.817
                                > 3 12 173 82.453
                                > 4 25 17 82.163
                                > 5 5 7009 79.695
                                > 6 23 19 79.499
                                > 7 24 17 79.330
                                > 8 11 195 79.095
                                > 9 7 1290 78.786
                                > 10 9 425 78.677
                                > 11 10 265 78.116
                                > 12 22 19 76.554 MEDIAN
                                > 13 14 69 76.214
                                > 14 19 27 75.803
                                > 15 4 11961 75.115
                                > 16 21 20 74.893
                                > 17 18 29 74.081
                                > 18 13 78 74.064
                                > 19 6 1606 73.815
                                > 20 15 48 73.553
                                > 21 20 21 73.068
                                > 22 16 38 72.752
                                > 23 17 29 70.713
                                >

                                That was as per 6 Jun.
                                Just over 5 months on, the revised table is:-

                                rank k d s=(k+4)*log(d)
                                ---- - - ------ -------
                                1 8 1057 83.558
                                2 3 137514 82.817
                                3 12 173 82.453
                                4 25 17 82.163
                                5 5 7009 79.695
                                6 24 18 80.930
                                7 23 19 79.499
                                8 11 196 79.172
                                9 7 1290 78.786
                                10 9 425 78.677
                                11 10 274 78.584
                                12 17 42 78.491 was 23rd
                                13 6 2145 76.709 was 19th
                                14 22 19 76.554
                                15 14 69 76.214
                                16 19 27 75.803
                                17 15 54 75.791 was 20th
                                18 4 11961 75.115 was 15th
                                19 21 20 74.893 was 16th
                                20 16 42 74.753
                                21 18 29 74.081 was 17th
                                22 13 78 74.064 was 18th
                                23 20 21 73.068

                                Note that the lowest score was 70.713 and is now 73.068.
                                The comments are against k values which have changed rank by more than 2.
                                The first 11 positions are almost unchanged.

                                The latest table might help in suggesting to people (but perhaps I shouldn't be giving these clues:-) which records to try for next.

                                -Mike Oakes
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.